De mortuis nil nisi bonum

Well, my social media feed (yes, I have one. Stop giggling) is blowing up regarding the comments of one Randa Jarrar regarding the death of the former First Lady Barbara Bush.

I’ve looked at her tweets, and what she says of the dead is absolutely repugnant.

However, I am also reminded that those of us on the Conservative side of the house have been continually telling the children of the Thuggish Left that the First amendment isn’t there to protect speech you agree with. Speech everyone agrees with doesn’t need protecting.  The First Amendment is there to protect speech you don’t like.

Yes, what this professor said about Mrs Bush is hateful, rude, profane, and generally tacky — to say nothing about displaying a lamentable lack of a grounding in Classical education that is becoming altogether more apparent on University professors these days — but it is still protected speech.

And Fresno State is still — as long as they accept government funds — part of the government, and thus is exactly whom the First Amendment was written to protect people from.  Any true conservative should be appalled at suggesting that government actually police free speech.

Fresno State would completely be violating her First Amendment rights to fire her, or even sanction her in any way.

As far as her overwhelming a suicide hot-line:  tacky, and far from the first time it’s happened by way of a campus prank.  The hot-line should present her with a bill for the expenses related to her idiocy, with an offer to go to court should she deign not to cough up the money.

We also hear that alumni and long-time donors to Fresno State are considering withholding funds, or not sending their sprogs to that institution.

Oh, ho, that’s a completely different kettle of fish.  Private citizens deciding where to send their money?  Or, in this case, deciding not to donate their dosh to Fresno State for … well, any reason?  Hell, yes, and good on them.

It’s the donor’s money, and if Randa Jarrar decides to exercise her First Amendment right to be a complete disrespectful jackass, the donors likewise have a right to not give money to the university that gave her tenure.

And the gods bless each donor who decides not to send money to Fresno State anymore.

For those who think it’s wrong to punish the entire University for the actions of one of its professors — tough.  You can’t tell me that Fresno State didn’t know exactly what sort of human being they were getting when they granted tenure to Randa Jarrar.

Randa Jarrar, and all the administration and faculty who thought it was a Good Idea to give her tenure, should most certainly be allowed to sit in their offices as the money dries up, and the campus begins to crumble around their ears.

Too Long; Didn’t Read version:

You’re not allowed to fire her for simply exercising her First Amendment rights to be a two-bit, monosynaptic, mouth-breathing, invertebrate honyock; however, any private person thinking of not donating money to the idiot institution who thought it was a Good Idea to not only hire this purulent pismire, but to give her tenure, that private person is on the side of all that is Good and Decent on this little green dirtball.


NRAAM 2018
Audio Book II

39 thoughts on “De mortuis nil nisi bonum”

  1. And I'm once again reminded that the first amendment prohibits the government from sanctioning her. Fresno State, while being a university that accepts federal funds, is not the government, (ir)regardless of where some of it's funding comes from.

    Boeing, or Lockheed, or IBM, also receive funds from the government, and yes some of that is in the form of grants for research and not just payments for good. And they can and have fired people for statements made that were found to be in violation of corporate policy.

    Sorry, this is just a long winded way of saying that calling for her firing or even her being fired by Fresno state in no way violates her first amendment rights. She can still spout off all the drivel she wants. And in the future that we live in she can do it for free and still reach millions if not billions of other mouth breathers.

  2. An argument can be made that if Fresno State actually wanted to fire her, she gave them an grounds to do so with her public posting of the Hotline of a competing University as her personal line. Additionally some old video (2016) that has surfaced of her lamenting that SJW's are to non-violent and they need to start stacking the bodies (my paraphrase, not her exact words) fall into the category of "Speech intended to incite violence", and is also actionable as 1A doesn't cover that.

  3. There's a really shady line between rights, and obscenity. Most stay on one side, or the other. Society, in general, stays on the side which demands liberty allows freedom from the other side. That side, at best, censors those that are obscene. At worst, society punishes those for their affronts to politeness. What the punishment demands is flexible, but firing a wart on the ass of society is on the lighter end of the scale. In my opinion, the professor of ignorance actions demand something heavier.

  4. Surely the university has some type of social media policy that even tenured professors are supposed to abide by? Especially since she drug the university into the entire brouhaha when she sheltered behind her position as a tenured professor (to say nothing of the truly sophomoric stunt with the hotline number!!)

  5. I think that there is a possibility of charging her with ddos attack of a university across state lines under the CCFA 18 U.S.C. § 1030

    Not a high probability of it happening, but it just depends on the US Attorney.

  6. Happily fund raisers for Long Beach State called me two days after their campus newspaper published an article stating that milk was racist.i actually laughed out loud as I told them why I was not sending any money. I hope it was passed along.

  7. Free Speech is a fundamental right. I, as a sapient being, have the ability to say whatever I want. The First Amendment protects that right from government interference because the Founders knew that one of the first steps to tyranny was controlling what people said.

    Free Association is also a fundamental right. I have the ability to gather with or work for whomever I choose. I necessary corollary to this is that I have the right to disassociate with whomever I choose.

    What we have here is a classic conflict of rights. This vile waste of gravity has the right to run her mouth and pollute the noosphere. At the same time, Fresno State has the right to not associate with VWOGs. I understand Our Gracious and Eloquent Host's point that Fresno State had a pretty good idea what they were buying when the signed her on, but as a general principle I have a problem sentencing a corporation to death for making a poor hiring decision.

    On a more strategic level, taking the high road with regards to Free Speech isn't working out well for us. Companies from Mozilla to Google to The Atlantic fire conservative – or insufficiently Progressive – employees with impunity. If we don't fight back and threaten the livelihoods of vocal Progressives we will one day get to the point where it will be impossible to voice anything contrary to the Party line without and still provide for your family. I would love to live in a world where everyone could say anything reasonable without fear of being fired*, but that's not the world we live in. Unilateral disarmament is always a mistake.

    *at least off the clock. Your employer obviously has some interest in keeping the workplace running smoothly, and the public faces of the company are paid to present the company line.

  8. Hitting them in the pocketbook WILL get their attention… Re Mizzou, they lost estimated $23M in cancelled endowments, lost students, had to close 7 dorms and layed off 400 people…

  9. I read some years ago in guns and ammo, an individual suggesting that if someone wants to burn the Flag, that's ok, just that the person should wrap it around their head first.

    The checkbook is all they will understand, as NFO pointed out.

  10. aepilot_jim:
    Fresno State is, if Wikipedia can be believed, part of the California State University system, and is therefore an arm of the California government. As Calexit has not yet occurred, they're still bound by the 1st Amendment.

  11. It seems to me that at the moment Fresno State is less an arm of the California government than a finger – a middle finger extended at the American public.

  12. I would suggest that looking into her scholarship might be in order. Remember Ward Churchill? Such loudmouths are often guilty of shoddy research practices.

    I’m not saying that I know of any instance where this woman broke the rules of scholarly practice. I know slightly less about her than I know about open heart surgery. But people who believe that rules like respect for the dead do not apply to them are likely to think they are above other rules as well…..

  13. I must respectfully disagree. The constitution as amended exists for one purpose only. To protect the creator(states and citizens) from the creation(federal government). Like Dr Frankenstein attempting to protect himself from the monster he created.

    It follows that the first amendment protects Jarrar from prosecution for her free speech. The first amendment does not protect her from persecution or employment action for her speech. Any employee private or government is subject to employment action for their words that come back to haunt the employer. Their only protection here is their employment contract.

    An employer can fire an employee at the discretion of the owners of the company and company policies established by them. If the employer is a government agency then the owners are the citizens of that entity(California, and possibly the fedgov due to funding). Imagine if an employee of Bugscuffle SO or a Texas Ranger made statements that inflamed their employer. I am certain that employment action would follow.

    It is clearly appropriate for Fresno State to fire Jarrar if her employment contract allows it. It is also clearly proper for California citizens to put pressure on Fresno State to do so. It is also appropriate for other states to put political pressure on Fresno State. And as you said, it is appropriate for private citizens to refuse to support Fresno State with their finances and their children.

    The only true answer is to eliminate federal and state involvement in education.

  14. "Congress shall make no law…"

    I think it's possible to argue that this isn't a First Amendment issue.

    But it's simpler to fire her for damaging her employer… Oops, this is California. Fresno State may be weighing the damage she's done against the trouble and expense of lawsuits.

  15. Sadly, as a citizen of the great state of California, I am required to help fund Fresno State. I very much doubt their money will "dry up" as any shortfall will be covered by the taxpayers of CA.

  16. While I agree in principle with the post, given how for years anyone to the political right of Chairman Mao has been fired from their job and/or virtually pilloried for even innocuous statements of fact by leftist mobs or been silenced out of fear of said mobs, I find it difficult to muster much ambition to defend her.

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in short (for certain values of "good", granted).

  17. The best way to punish her and Fresno State is to publish her comments far and wide. Be sure to include that she is of Palestinian descent, which explains so much. Put up a billboard near campus with her face and comments, titled THIS IS FRESNO STATE. Put it on mailers and send it to donors. Let her comments speak for themselves and destroy support for her and her university.

  18. You know what hacks me off almost as much as people who disdain the 1st Amendment? People who use foreign language quotes with no translation. We're all impressed, I'm sure, by their pompous erudition. Which I'm sure is their point in the first place. It certainly isn't in the pursuit of good communication. Stop being a supercilious jerk. I'd take your point of view more seriously.

  19. There is also the matter of double standards, is there not? Conservatives failing to use only the most obsequious language about the latest Left wing mania (the ever-increasing letter salad of LGBTQQIP2SAALS/MFT and its concurrent demand for unpronounceable pronouns), are vilified in the harshest rhetoric imaginable. Opining that Elizabeth Warren, say, wore an unflattering color today is met with a barrage of accusations of hate speech.

    Some of us would appreciate civility on both sides of the conversation.

  20. I get what you're saying. And you're right.

    That said, the left has set up a set of rules that Nohbody talks about, and that is all about silencing people. And the only way to get back to even keel is to make the left live by their own rules. Once they've had their fill of it, they might be willing to go back to the old rules.

    But I won't hold my breath.

  21. Anonymous @ 7:23 AM:

    If the Latin quote that begins the OP offends you, I am sorry to hear that. From my hazy recollection of that dead language, I suspected it had something to do with not saying ill of the dead (mortuis sounds like “mortal” and “bene” means good, so in the mongrelized translation, it would sound like “of the dead” (de mortuis) “nothing but good” (nil nisi bonum)). There is a missing word from that, alas, now uncommon phrase (that being “dicendum”- it means “to say.”) Lest you think this is pretentious crap, know that I had to refresh my memory with wikipedia. There's a world of information out there for the curious. And the forgetful ones that didn't pay nearly as much attention to their teachers as they did to catching frogs.

    Of Mister Dawg, while he's likely much smarter than me- a low bar to be sure- I find his practical wisdom and common sense to be the more attention getting factors. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

    As for Miz Jarrar, I believe her just desserts are to be heard far and wide. To let any and everyone know just what sort of person she really is. I'm sure Fresno could, at any time, issue a statement either in support of or condemnation of her stated opinions, if they so chose. Given the openly expressed proclivities of (most of) the Californiafried the latter is doubtful. I've no opinions whatsoever on her other qualifications, or lack thereof. She may be a gifted teacher and educator. She might even help little old ladies across the street.

    Wait, scratch that last one. Probably not.

    If Fresno wishes to retain this reeking albatross, by all means they should. The stink ain't going to die down quick. I'll not be calling for her expulsion, no, not I. Let 'er reap those consequences as long as she may. It might just make another would-be agitator think twice.


  22. Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. They changed the rules, not us. We need to make DAMN sure that the idiots that thought it was a good idea to change them get EXACTLY what they asked for. Get it good and hard.

    The rules changed somewhere around 2008, when the Mozilla CEO got fired. As long as we are going to have speech codes, I'm going to try to make sure they're MY speech codes. I'd rather not have any, but since they insist…

    If that means that over-educated hemorrhoids lose their jobs, fine.

    If that means that colleges specializing in Marxist indoctrination and gender studies lose funding, fine.

    There is the remote possibility that inflicting enough pain will teach them WHY we had those rules in the first place.

    Loved the Africa Stories, btw. It would make a great TV series.

  23. Fatherof10 beat me to it. Fresno State (any university, for that matter) is NOT equivalent to the Federal government. I wrote a paper in college trying to explain why the government was wrong for saying Wabash College accepted students who got Federal aid, thus they were accepting money from the FedGov and had to admit women to an all-male college. Same as saying if a a student spent $1 (hey, it was a long time ago!) from their student loan on a beer, then Joe's Bar and Grill had to bow to the FedGov. Whether or not they fire her lice-infested odorous butt is wholly dependent on her employment contract. Most of which change "tenured" to "at will" for cause. That being said, hope to see you at NRAAM!

  24. I would have to agree with the main principle expressed here, in that her employer would have no justification to fire her if she is speaking as a private citizen, using her private equipment, on her own time.

    However, once she identifies herself as a member of a given group while giving a statement, that group must have the Freedom of Association to no longer associate with her.

    So in my eyes, this has nothing to do with whether she can call Barbara Bush a racist in public, and everything to do with whether she can cite her authority as a staff member at Fresno State and specifically describe her view as being welcome in that place, which she did.

    If I say, for instance, "I believe abortion is ethically sound," then I am expressing a First Amendment right to speech. However, if I say, "As a Catholic, I believe that abortion is ethically sound," and they have no right to warn or expel me from their congregation, then they are being denied *their* First Amendment right to association.

  25. Fresno State may be unable to fire her but they can assign her to their newly established extension program in say, Caracas or Prudhoe Bay. When the money dries up, Fresno State can lay her off first or, better yet, lay off the fools that voted for her tenure.

  26. The second Civil war will be fought by assassination, not by military action. Put her on your lists.

  27. You're absolutely right. They shouldn't fire her. And everyone else can let it be known that Fresno State hired her, and that if you spending five figures to send your darling child there, that she may teach that child. Let the chips fall where they may.

  28. Her grammar in some of the tweets should be enough to get her fired. She is supposed to be an English professor after all.

  29. And people wonder why I'm an angry SOB. My tax dollars support these kinds of shenanigans, despite my personal distaste for them. The alumni ought to close their checkbooks until this matter is resolved.
    Ulises from CA.

  30. As I see it, they can't send her to prison for what she said, but they can fire her, because that's a routine disciplinary measure for acting against the interest of her employer.

    If I said the exact same thing, I would be on the street as soon as my employer found out, even if I did not identify my employer . . . like she did.

    –WebFoot Logger

  31. Another case of Social Media Assisted Career Suicide.

    It's ironic that the Left is all about the First Amendment when they say something offensive. When a conservative or libertarian says something offensive, it suddenly becomes "hate speech" and must be stopped.

    At the heart of liberalism, you'll find nothing but hypocrisy.

    As they say, if it wasn't for double standards, the left wouldn't have any standards at all.

  32. Scribblers & Webfoot: A state university _is_ a government institution, so the First Amendment is applicable. It isn't an absolute right for government employees; e.g., if a police officer posted "I love cracking N—— skulls", with a picture of him in uniform holding a night stick, he would have made it impossible for his department to send him out on patrol, to have him testify in court anytime race was an issue, or to even hold down a desk. The First Amendment doesn't protect his job when his words made it impossible for him to do his job. Likewise, a county clerk that won't do part of her job on religious grounds is going to lose that job. A judge can moonlight as a preacher on Sunday, but he can't deliver a sermon when court is in session…

    But there is another factor when tenured faculty beclown themselves in public – their contract guarantees tenure, that is, that their job is protected even if their speech grossly embarrasses their employer – and to prevent using other things as excuses when the real goal is to penalize or suppress speech, a tenure contract leaves very few options for firing a professor short of being convicted of a felony. A Biology professor could get religion and start claiming that the Earth was created in 4004 BC and keep his paycheck, although they could insist that he either stick to the curriculum or be shunted off to lecture to an empty room.

    Anonymous 7:05: An English professor can butcher the language and keep her tenure – but you have to wonder if she only started doing this after gaining tenure, or if the signs that she is incompetent to teach English were all plain to see before then, but were ignored because she fills several minority checkboxes…

  33. She seems to be the type who would insult dead people. As a live one, even a 98 year old woman, would surely kick her ass.

  34. The Excellent Service Providers of Escorts Girls in Karachi offer Elite VIP Females Service If you want some unique and memorable date with Karachi Escorts Girls so this is the right Agency who Provide lot of fun and an unforgettable experiences of Escort in Karachi in that you never got before Call us we are available Any time at your service with our satisfying Models Visit our Blog and find out more about us.

Comments are closed.